What is truly sad is that many of the Orthodox for some strange reason believes we have different unrelated beliefs.
Just a thought experiment, if I may: Imagine if you will that a Oneness Pentecostal and a Catholic were talking, and the Oneness Pentecostal said “I don’t know why you think that you and I have different beliefs. We both believe in Jesus.” Would you say “You’re right”? No, right? Because while you share some very basic/fundamental belief with them (e.g., there is one God), there are other basic beliefs (e.g., the divinity of Christ, traditional Triadology, etc.) that you guys do not share, in addition to many more less basic beliefs that you do not share. I believe that a Oneness Pentecostal and a Catholic are farther apart in doctrine than a Catholic and an Orthodox Christian, if we look at things only in a checklist manner (i.e., there would be more basics in common between Catholics and Orthodox, precisely because they both share some form of Trinitarian belief and believe in Christ’s divinity that the Oneness Pentecostal does not), but in that same way there are many less basic beliefs that are held by Catholics that are not held by Orthodox, even outside of the obvious differences in ecclesiology: the Filioque, the Sacred Heart and related devotions, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, etc. These are not matters of ecclesiology or jurisdictional principles, but they are all beliefs that the Orthodox do not embrace. I take it that’s what you mean by “different unrelated beliefs”.
Everything else is acceptable and should never be a reason for separation.
The problem is that the Orthodox do not agree with this idea. Everything else is not acceptable to them, though it may be acceptable to you.
If you listen to some of the Orthodox posters you would swear that their current beliefs are what the ancient Church held to, down to the nth degree, when in fact the options of beliefs they have now are in many respects different in many nuanced ways, yet the very same freedoms they allow themselves in nuance they do not allow others.
There is a difference between nuance within a recognized framework agreed upon within the church in question (read: internal consistency, whether or not anyone outside of the church would agree with what is taught there), and what those outside of the church would call nuance. To both communions under discussion in this thread (which I am not a part of, but I don’t doubt that you’d both agree with this point), of course their own explanations and views are nuanced and correct – though the “other side’s” are not. I don’t think it would take too much digging to find Orthodox posters challenging RCs on the Filioque (to use but one example), nor to find RC posters challenging EO posters on that communion’s limited allowance of divorce and remarriage (ditto). Both churches’ explanations of either matter are nuanced, but to those outside of each respective communion, that is not enough to make them right.
I have no doubt that within 25 years we will be together.
This is highly,
highly optimistic by any stretch of the imagination, though I wish you both luck just the same.
